Please enable JavaScript.

The effects of trust are transmitted in a relatively straightforward manner: Trust results in distinct (main) effects such as more positive attitudes, higher levels of cooperation (and other forms of workplace behavior), and superior levels of performance.

This idea is reflected in most theoretical treatments of trust and its effects on workplace attitudes, behaviors, and performance (e.g., Golembiewski and McConkie 1975, Jones and George 1998, Mayer et al. 1995).

A handful of studies suggest that trust is beneficial because it facilitates the effects of other determinants on desired outcomes.

Hence, instead of proposing that trust directly results in desirable outcomes, this model suggests that trust pro- vides the conditions under which certain outcomes, such as cooperation and higher performance, are likely to occur.

One proposition suggests that trust facilitates the effects of motivational concepts on workplace behaviors and outcomes by influencing one’s expectations about another person’s future behavior.

The second proposition suggests that trust moderates the relationship between an interaction partner’s action and the truster’s response by influencing one’s interpretation of the action.

We then consider the conditions under which trust is likely to have a direct effect on desired outcomes, an indirect effect, or no effect.

Developing a better understanding of the role of trust is an important step for research and practice related to the concept of trust.

Is important to identifies the different outcomes trust has been associated with, provides evidence for how trust affects these outcomes, and offers insights that we draw on as one element of our theory development.

Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 395) proposed the following as a crossdisciplinary conceptual definition of trust: a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another.

We recognize, however, that trust is a complex psychological state that may consist of different dimensions.

Because existing trust research is relatively diverse and multidisciplinary, Bigley and Pearce (1998) note that it is important for researchers to focus on particular problems, and then use concepts, theories, and methods appropriate for the problems.

We will focus only on trust as a psychological state, such as a belief or attitude, toward another known individual, as opposed to trust as a dispositional construct (e.g., Rotter 1967) or among groups or firms (e.g., Wicks et al. 1999, Das and Teng 1998). And, we will focus on the effects of trust on workplace-relevant attitudes and behaviors of individuals as studied by microorganizational behavior researchers,

According to the model of our article, trust operates in a straightfoward manner: Higher levels of trust are expected to result in more positive attitudes, higher levels of cooperation and other forms of workplace behavior, and superior levels of performance.

This model has dominated how the concept of trust has been studied in research and used in managerial interventions.

Main Effects on Workplace Behaviors and Performance Outcomes:

Mayer et al. (1995): According to their model, individuals’ beliefs about another’s ability, benevolence, and integrity lead to a willingness to risk, which in turn leads to risk taking in a relationship, as manifested in a variety of behaviors.

In other words, a higher level of trust in a work partner increases the likelihood that one will take a risk with a partner (e.g., cooperate, share information) and/or increases the amount of risk that is assumed. Risk-taking behavior, in turn, is expected to lead to positive outcomes (e.g., individual performance). And, in social units such as work groups, cooperation, information sharing, etc. are expected to lead to higher unit performance (Larson and LaFasto 1989).

10 studies examined the idea that individuals transmit more information, and/or information with higher fidelity, to a superior or work partner when they trust that individual. Of these, six studies found a significant effect of trust on various operationalizations of information sharing (Boss 1978, Mellinger 1959, O’Reilly 1978, O’Reilly and Roberts 1974, Smith and Barclay 1997, Zand 1972). But, four studies did not find a significant effect (De Dreu et al. 1998, Dirks 1999, Kimmel et al. 1980, Roberts and O’Reilly 1974).

Main Effects on Workplace Attitudes and Cognitive/ Perceptual Constructs:

Researchers examining the effect of trust on perceptions, for example of the accuracy of information, and acceptance of a decision or goal tend to build on the idea that trust has a direct impact on people’s overall view of the other party.

Most of the studies that examined the effects of trust on attitudes focused on satisfaction,

Research on the effects of trust on perceptions has examined main effects on the perceived accuracy of information given by another en- tity, acceptance of decisions from a superior, perceptions of psychological contract breach, procedural justice judgements, perceptions of organizational climate, and perceptions of risk.

Moderating effect:

We explore a different model of how trust might operate in organizational settings: by serving to facilitate (i.e., moderate) the effects of other determinants on work attitudes, perceptions, behaviors, and perfor- mance outcomes.

Trust embodies the accumulated experiences with, and knowledge about, the other party in situations involving vulnerability. Because it represents an individual’s understanding of a relationship, we propose that trust engenders two distinct processes through which it fosters or inhibits positive out- comes in the relationship:

First, trust affects how one assesses the future behavior of another party with whom one is interdependent (or whom may take action that af- fects oneself).

Second, trust also affects how one interprets the past (or present) actions of the other party, and the motives underlying the actions.

Both propositions rest on the premise that trust does not act in a direct causal role or elicit particular outcomes itself. Instead, trust moderates the effect of primary determinants (causal factors) on outcomes by affecting how one assesses the future behavior or interprets the past actions of another party. By impacting the assessment of the other party’s future or prior actions, trust reduces some of the concomitant uncertainty and ambiguity.

Considering the relationship between trust and an outcome it is commonly associated with risk-taking behavior (Mayer et al. 1995).

Trust, instead of directly causing risk-taking behaviors, may influence the extent to which a motivation for engaging in risk-taking behaviors is likely to lead to risk-taking behaviors.

In our examples, trust functions not by causing the individual to engage in the behavior, but as a moderating construct that influences the strength of the relationship between the behavioral cue and the individual’s behavior.

Dirks (1999) found that trust did not have a main effect on group processes and performance, but did moderate the relationship between group members’ motivation and group processes and outcomes.

Similarly, in a negotiation, Kimmel et al. (1980) found that trust did not produce a main effect on information exchange or outcomes (joint benefit), but it did interact with aspiration levels to influence negotiation processes. Under high trust, high aspiration levels produced high levels of information exchange and integrative (cooperative) behavior under high trust. But under low trust, high aspiration levels produced extremely low levels of information exchange and high levels of distributive (competitive) behavior.

Taken together, these three studies demonstrate a pat- tern consistent with our theorizing: Trust influences task- related behavior and/or performance via moderation. Specifically, trust affects the level and/or type of behaviors that individuals engage in as a result of motivational constructs.

Trust is a psychological state that provides a representation of how individuals understand their relationship with another party in situations that involve risk or vulnerability.

Situational strength: We use the concept of “situational strength” to delineate when each model is likely to be applicable.

Strong: Researchers suggest that situations are “strong” to the extent that they provide guidance and incentives to behave in a particular way, and lead everyone to construe the particular events in a similar way (e.g., Mischel 1977, p. 347).

Weak: in contrast, situations are weak to the extent that they do not provide guidance or incentives to behave in a particular way, and do not provide clear or powerful cues that lead individuals to interpret the events in a similar way.

Organizational researchers have found this concept to be helpful for understanding the role of psychological states and traits (e.g., attitudes, personality, beliefs) in impacting workplace outcomes, given the existence of other determinants such as reward systems, rules, and group and cultural norms (e.g., Davis-Blake and Pfeffer 1989, House et al. 1996).

Examining the simultaneous effect of trust (a psychological state) and other determinants via the concept of situational strength builds on arguments presented earlier in this article: In many situations, there are factors that have more proximal and direct effects on workplace outcomes than does trust.

We suggest that the main effect model will be particularly applicable in situations that are weak for the outcome in question. The main effect model is built on the idea that, because trust is a positive psychological state, absent other more powerful or proximal determinants, one will be more likely to engage in a variety of desirable actions (e.g., cooperation).

Consequently, in weak situations, where other factors do not play a strong role in guiding outcomes, a higher level of trust will have the opportunity to result in positive outcomes (e.g., behavior, attitude).